Skip to content


Smt. Savitri Devi Vs. the Collector - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 626 of 1977
Judge
Reported in1978WLN(UC)263
AppellantSmt. Savitri Devi
RespondentThe Collector
Excerpt:
.....notice and ordering resumption without hearing party--held, order is against rules of natural justice & cannot be sustained. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a ..........which is ex. 2. at that time one shri gurdeosingh has raised dispute regarding the part of land mentioned in schedule b of the writ petition which was given to the petitioner under the award. shri gurdeosingh filed a writ petition in this court which was registered as s.b. civil writ petition no. 1990 of 1973. in that case shri gurdeosingh obtained ad interim order but later on the same was vacated on 11-3-74. it may also be noted here that one shri gurjarsingh had also filed a suit regarding a part of the land measuring 7 bighas out of land mentioned in schedule b in the court of additional collector, sriganganagar. that suit was decreed. the petitioner filed an appeal before the revenue appellate authority, bikaner which is still pending. the petitioner stated that shri.....
Judgment:

M.L. Joshi, J.

1.This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Savitri Devi praying for issuance of a writ, order, direction in the nature of mandamus or certiorari for quashing the order of the Collector Sriganganagar Ex. 4 and further restraining him from taking further proceedings in pursuance of Ex. 4.

2. The material facts which are necessary for disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are as under: The petitioner is a Khatedar of agricultural land. Formerly the petitioner had 42 bighas 15 biswas of land in her Khatedar in pursuance of award dated 27-11-59. A settlement parcha was also issued in favoir of the petitioner which is Ex. 2. At that time one Shri Gurdeosingh has raised dispute regarding the part of land mentioned in Schedule B of the writ petition which was given to the petitioner under the award. Shri Gurdeosingh filed a writ petition in this court which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1990 of 1973. In that case Shri Gurdeosingh obtained ad interim order but later on the same was vacated on 11-3-74. It may also be noted here that one Shri Gurjarsingh had also filed a suit regarding a part of the land measuring 7 bighas out of land mentioned in Schedule B in the court of Additional Collector, Sriganganagar. That suit was decreed. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Revenue Appellate Authority, Bikaner which is still pending. The petitioner stated that Shri Gurjarsingh is in illegal possession of the piece of land mentioned above. The further case of the petitioner is that she had sold 17 bighas out of the land mentioned in schedule B and the petitioner is now in cultivatory peaceful possession of the land as mentioned in schedule A attached to the writ petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that the Collector Ganganagar in course of the Revenue camp on 19-10-77 at village Talvara cancelled the mutation made in favour of the petitioner of the lands and ordered the resumption without any notice or with but hearing her. The petitioner therefore contends that the order Ex. 4 canceling the mutation is illegal and invalid as it b violative of principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not heard before the order canceling the mutation was passed.

3. The State has opposed the writ petition and has denied that the petitioner had any right to get any land in exchange of the alleged sub-merged land. It may be recalled that the lands were given to the petitioner by the S.D.O. in exchange of her lands which were sub-merged. The State has also controverted the allegations of the petitioner in respect of the sale of lard by her. As regards the contention relating to the violation of principle of natural justice, it has been contended by the State that no notice was necessary as the matter was decided in the public meeting which was duly notified by the beat of drum in the whole village and every villager was present and so it was a constructive notice

4. It has been seriously contended by Mr. Pareekh on behalf of the petitioner that no reasonable opportunity of being heard was ever given to the petitioner before canceling the petitioner's Khatedar rights. It is submitted that all of a sudden without giving previous notice to the petitioner of the date of hearing the Collector came to the village, held a village gathering and made oral inquiries and did not give sufficient and adequate opportunity to the petitioner to satisfy the Collector that she holds Khatedar rights under a valid settlement parcha. On this basis it has been urged that there is a clear breach of principle of alterm and partem.

5. The question therefore immediately calls for consideration is whether there has been violation of principle of natural justice. My answer to this question is in affirmative. In my opinion no adequate opportunity of being heard was given to the petitioner. In the interest of justice equity and fair play it was incumbent upon the Collector to have given reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to establish her case. The Collector should have appraised the material on which he wished to proceed against the petitioner It is settled law that principle and procedure should be applied in any particular situation or set of circumstances which are light, just and fair, and in consonance with principle of justice equity and fair play vide 1969 (2) Ch D. 149). The point has been elaborately dealt by me in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 581 of 1977 and need not be discussed in detail here as that case squarely covers this case. Admittedly there was no reasonable opportunity to the petitioner of being heard. The order is, therefore, bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

6. In the result the writ petition is accepted, the impugned order of Collector Sriganganagar Ex. 4 is hereby quashed. The Collector is directed to take proceedings if he so desire in regard to the disputed Land in accordance with law after giving the petitioner reasonable opportunity of being heard. The decision in this writ petition shall net prejudicially affect 11 right of Sarv Shri Gurdeosingh and Gurjarsingh if any which are subject matter of 1 litigation in the courts of law. The parties are left to be their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //